Talk:Devlon
Delete Nomination As stated, this is an unused redirect. No page links to Devlon. And, for you non-admin types, unused redirect is actually one of the standard reasons for deleting an article, so much so that it's one of the preset options you can choose when deleting a page. I can't conceive of a case in which Devlon by itself would need to be linked. Not a one. After all, linking is generally done at the first mention of something in an article, and we wouldn't refer to the company as "Devlon" in those circumstances. We'd use the actual name of the company, which isn't Devlon. It's Devlon Industries. SpartHawg948 07:58, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :I oppose deletion. Whole not being linked to anywhere, it is useful for searches. Anyone searching for Devlon could only be searching for Devlon Industries. Having the search redirect to the article that is obviously being searched for provides for a better user experience. This is my opinion on redirects in general. Common misspellings, alternate spellings, shorter versions of article titles that could only be for one article or alternate character names should all have redirects, not for linking, but for providing a better search experience. It's how Wikipedia works, and it works just fine. JakePT 09:53, March 8, 2011 (UTC) ::I on the other hand support deletion. We do not need a redirect for every single variation on something. I have never heard of Devlon Industries being referred to this anywhere. Bottom line, this is just one of those things that doesn't need a redirect. Lancer1289 13:55, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :::Support deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:57, March 8, 2011 (UTC) ::::I get where you're coming from, JakePT, I just don't think it's necessary to have redirects for 'Devlon', 'Delvon' (if we're to accept that common misspellings need them too), 'Delvon Industries', and so on. That's three redirects for just one page. And there are 25 other corporations with articles, many of which have names it's super easy to misspell. How many redirects would we have to make, for example, for Jormangund Technology? Five? Ten? And that's only the corporations. We'd also have to do it for names, for planets, for systems, etc. We'd end up with a wiiki of behemothic proportions, made up almost entirely of redirects. And in an aside, I'm frequently stymied on Wikipedia when misspellings I make (ones that, being mostly a slip of the finger causing me to hit the wrong key on the keyboard, hitting k instead of l or some such, I would assume are fairly common) have no redirect, so I can't really buy that it's how Wikipedia works. SpartHawg948 17:08, March 8, 2011 (UTC) :::::I share JakePT's philosophy, and therefore oppose deletion-- Redirects cost us next to nothing to keep. I don't really buy the 'how many redirects do we make?' argument either. The answer to that question is (or should be) easy: as many as is actually helpful. If it's clear that the misspelling (or what have you) is common enough to require a redirect, then it will be created by someone, demonstrating its usefulness to at least that person. After that first data point, it becomes a bit trickier. AFAIK, we have no way to track what gets searched for on the wiki, so we don't know how often misspellings or alternate names are being looked for. Being able to track that information would make the job a lot easier: if we see lots of hits on alternate spellings for a topic, then a redirect would serve to help those people, and would thus be deserving of creation/continued existence. :::::Since we currently cannot do that, then I would dare to suggest that the first data point (the creation of the redirect) is enough to say that it's useful, assuming that the creation of the redirect does not violate other criteria for creation (profanity, defamation, obscenity, for instance), and assuming that the redirect was created in response to an actual need, rather than a misguided attempt to cater to every possible misspelling. :::::I realize that those assumptions are rather tall orders, and that I am perhaps being too idealistic about things, but it's really hard to pin down something as subjective as 'usefulness' with so little data. :::::I also realize that you're searching for a (relatively) binary "litmus test" for misspelling-based redirects, SpartHawg, and I don't think that's really possible: My own offered solution is admittedly weak. Perhaps this is your point, and your motivation for excluding most (if not all) of these types of redirects, but I respectfully do not share this 'black-and-white' philosophy about it. :::::I'll write wikia and see if there exist any advanced tools to track what's being looked for on the wiki, so that we can have more quantifiable data to back up a 'yay' or a 'nay' for whether a redirect is useful or not. Until then, in this instance, I am nevertheless voting oppose. -- Dammej (talk) 01:58, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::::As the person who created the redirect after going to the page and being confused at finding nothing there, I would oppose the deletion. --Lucius Voltaic 02:06, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::(Edit conflict) Yeah, you're pretty much right. Funny thing about being an admin - you may start off idealistic and looking for neat little compromises and all that. I know I did. However, you quickly learn that the only feasible course of action, and the one that (generally) makes the most people happy, or at least displeases the least people, is to take a strict, black-and-white interpretation of the rules. It's literally the only way to administer a wiki consistently, and if you don't administer a wiki consistently, you're always going to get "But this other time you did ___" or "well last time this came up you let it slide" or other comparable comments any time you make a decision someone doesn't like. Hence the black-and-white approach. That way, I don't have to explain why my decisions on two comparable situations were so different, or defend myself from justified accusations of hypocrisy or double standards. Black-and-white standards are, in my rather extensive experience (having served as an admin and later Bureaucrat for two wikis for a cumulative total of about five years now), the only effective method of doing business. SpartHawg948 02:11, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::To Lucius Voltaic I would ask, if I may, why did you expect to find something at 'Devlon'? There is nothing by that name anywhere in the ME universe as it currently stands. It'd be (to use a real-world analogy) like my looking for 'General' and being confused when I didn't find info on 'General Electric', which is what I was searching for. SpartHawg948 02:14, March 9, 2011 (UTC) (Reset indent) Yeah, it's a very understandable position to hold, and I can empathize. I hope that I did not come across as critical or judgmental of your position, I just wanted to voice my disagreement. This is to say: I hope your response was not born out of a desire to defend your position, rather than explain, because it was not my intention. -- Dammej (talk) 02:31, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :I didn't remember the exact name, and I thought it was Devlon. --Lucius Voltaic 02:32, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Fair enough, though this gets back to the 'how many redirects are we going to have to make?' question. I'd also like to give a shout-out to the Corporations page, where you could have found the correct name. And yes, Dammej, I was explaining my position. I feel no need to defend my 'follow the rules as they are written and treat every issue with consistency' admin style, I was merely seeking to explain how this position came about, and how it's also at least partially an issue of perspective, as I don't think that people really get that you do see things differently as an admin, what with everyone looking to you and all that. SpartHawg948 02:37, March 9, 2011 (UTC) :::As for the "'how many redirects are we going to have to make?' question", I don't think that allowing a redirect in a certain type of situation implies requiring ourselves to create redirects for all such situations. If we see such a situation, we could create one or not. --Lucius Voltaic 02:47, March 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::Please see my preceding comments explaining the rationale one develops as an admin. Yes, it would require creating redirects for all such situations if we are to apply this new standard consistently . And consistency of standards is one of the cornerstones of this wiki. If you want, I'll give the whole lecture again, but I'd rather not, as it's right here on this page. SpartHawg948 02:50, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Well it has been seven days and despite a 3-3 vote, the redirect is going because an admin/b'crat can break a tie vote, provided they have of course voted. Both Spart and myself have voted for deletion, so as outlined in the Community Guidelines, this redirect is going. Lancer1289 16:17, March 15, 2011 (UTC)